If not then what's the point when all that can come of it is a strained relationship with your best friend's girl, and probably him too?

You're better off leaving it alone, I know a black woman's fury firsthand, and you don't want to be in the way of that shitstorm.

This all day

as true as it is its no excuse.

i dont think all people of color are rascist but the one in question clearly is if you want equality then dont say white people are any different from blacks even in public and certainly not more prone to mass murder

murder is something a sick PERSON does not a sick black person or a sick white person

Well said sir. I am very disappointed i even responded to this thread. This article is a complete crock of shit. "White male privilege" my ass. They basically assert that this guy chose to shoot up a theater because he is white, and "white privelege" makes him feel like he owns everything. How about he just wanted to kill a lot of people, and a sold out midnight showing at a movie theater seemed like a good target?

They only one with the sense of privilege is the writer of this article, and by his own admission.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 5:29:10PM

Posted by warglory

Dude why are you showing us your resume? Are you bragging or something?

This isn't a sociological forum, it's a debate, and you can definitely provide proof for your assertions with studies, which she didn't do. I assume you read the debate through fb, otherwise, I'm not really sure how you can make judgements on me without having read the debate yourself.

Because I'm validating my claims after you said you disagreed.

I tried asking you what it was about and you shut me down almost immediately. You didn't bother to tell me what you were arguing versus what she was arguing. You immediately assumed I would disagree with you and said, "I'm done."

I read the article and said that I thought it made sense. I acknowledged that it was lacking citations, but my expertise in the subject allowed me to fill in the blanks that the author failed to spell out for the readers.

You immediately shut the conversation down simply because I said I thought it made some interesting points. Never once did you ask WHY I thought it was interesting. If you had, you'd probably have discovered that I was supporting many of your points.

Instead of doing so, you got all huffy and just shut the conversation down like you were in charge of whether or not anyone wanted to reply to the post. If that's not how you meant it, fine. But that's certainly how it came off.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 5:32:19PM

Posted by pmoney

Well said sir. I am very disappointed i even responded to this thread. This article is a complete crock of shit. "White male privilege" my ass. They basically assert that this guy chose to shoot up a theater because he is white, and "white privelege" makes him feel like he owns everything. How about he just wanted to kill a lot of people, and a sold out midnight showing at a movie theater seemed like a good target?

They only one with the sense of privilege is the writer of this article, and by his own admission.

PLEASE READ

A lot of people seem to be confused as to the concept of white privilege. It's a very famous sociological article.

Dude why are you showing us your resume? Are you bragging or something?

This isn't a sociological forum, it's a debate, and you can definitely provide proof for your assertions with studies, which she didn't do. I assume you read the debate through fb, otherwise, I'm not really sure how you can make judgements on me without having read the debate yourself.

Because I'm validating my claims after you said you disagreed.

I tried asking you what it was about and you shut me down almost immediately. You didn't bother to tell me what you were arguing versus what she was arguing. You immediately assumed I would disagree with you and said, "I'm done."

I read the article and said that I thought it made sense. I acknowledged that it was lacking citations, but my expertise in the subject allowed me to fill in the blanks that the author failed to spell out for the readers.

You immediately shut the conversation down simply because I said I thought it made some interesting points. Never once did you ask WHY I thought it was interesting. If you had, you'd probably have discovered that I was supporting many of your points.

Instead of doing so, you got all huffy and just shut the conversation down like you were in charge of whether or not anyone wanted to reply to the post. If that's not how you meant it, fine. But that's certainly how it came off.

Dude, I am currently engaging in a rather heated exchange with my friend via email, so I really didn't want to debate with you, that's why. I just told you I didn't want to debate this topic, especially since I am quite pissed off right now. I don't know why you read so much into it, but when I told you I didn't want to debate, the polite thing to do would be to drop it.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 5:37:36PM

Posted by warglory

Dude, I am currently engaging in a rather heated exchange with my friend via email, so I really didn't want to debate with you, that's why. I just told you I didn't want to debate this topic, especially since I am quite pissed off right now. I don't know why you read so much into it, but when I told you I didn't want to debate, the polite thing to do would be to drop it.

You mean like when I said this:

EDIT: My next post is to everyone BUT you.

And you still kept replying even though you told us you were done?

This isn't YOUR thread. It's a community thread. You're free to stop responding at any time. Especially when you say you're done and I say, "okay, my next post is for everyone else."

cowcatcher

7/25/12 5:43:23PM

A privileged white man once said "sometimes it's best to let things go." That man was me, and it still holds true to this day.

P.S. How am I supposed to take an article by a privileged white dude named Peggy seriously.

warglory

7/25/12 5:43:58PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Posted by warglory

Dude, I am currently engaging in a rather heated exchange with my friend via email, so I really didn't want to debate with you, that's why. I just told you I didn't want to debate this topic, especially since I am quite pissed off right now. I don't know why you read so much into it, but when I told you I didn't want to debate, the polite thing to do would be to drop it.

You mean like when I said this:

EDIT: My next post is to everyone BUT you.

And you still kept replying even though you told us you were done?

This isn't YOUR thread. It's a community thread. You're free to stop responding at any time. Especially when you say you're done and I say, "okay, my next post is for everyone else."

Fucking hell man, you really just need to get the last word, don't you? I'm done here. Carry on gentlemen.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 5:56:04PM

Posted by warglory

Fucking hell man, you really just need to get the last word, don't you? I'm done here. Carry on gentlemen.

I've been asking myself the same thing about you. You've complained every time someone points something out to you, you're arguing with emotion, and posting while you're pissed off, but *I* have to have the last word?

It's not about the last word. It's about the fact that you opened up this debate to the community, someone from the community responded, you didn't like what they had to say, and you decided it was time for people to stop replying to your thread because you were "too pissed."

This isn't the first time you've gotten over-dramatic and petty in a thread on the Playground. You have a history of sinking to the lowest common denominator when someone disagrees with you.

This was about you realizing that perhaps you shouldn't create threads like this since you're clearly incapable of handling them.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 6:04:17PM

Posted by cowcatcher

A privileged white man once said "sometimes it's best to let things go." That man was me, and it still holds true to this day.

P.S. How am I supposed to take an article by a privileged white dude named Peggy seriously.

Peggy is a woman.

cowcatcher

7/25/12 6:09:49PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Posted by cowcatcher

A privileged white man once said "sometimes it's best to let things go." That man was me, and it still holds true to this day.

P.S. How am I supposed to take an article by a privileged white dude named Peggy seriously.

Peggy is a woman.

I know, just trying to lighten the mood in here. Not to mention, if she's a woman, what the hell does she know?(kidding)

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 6:20:08PM

Posted by cowcatcher

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Posted by cowcatcher

A privileged white man once said "sometimes it's best to let things go." That man was me, and it still holds true to this day.

P.S. How am I supposed to take an article by a privileged white dude named Peggy seriously.

Peggy is a woman.

I know, just trying to lighten the mood in here. Not to mention, if she's a woman, what the hell does she know?(kidding)

Honestly, while I think there is merit to her article, much like much feminist scholarship by men, I think it's more just a white person feeling guilty. Social scientists tend to be very touchy-feely people.

I put a lot more stock in classical sociological theory and historical sociology than I do most of these new theories and ideas.

pmoney

7/25/12 6:54:30PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurnPLEASE READ

A lot of people seem to be confused as to the concept of white privilege. It's a very famous sociological article.

I don't agree with a lot of that paper. To be quite honest, after the list of her 26 examples of her white privilege, I was like "When the fuck was this written?" And saw it was written in 1988.

I take exception to a lot of her examples.

She says she doesn't have to worry about being followed or harassed. That is just stupid. Any women who aren't worried about being followed are potential rape victims. White women have been abducted since the dawn of time.

She assumes her neighbors will be friendly or neutral to her, which is pure speculation.

She says she can arrange for her children to be protected from those who don't like them. I'd like to know how, and why ethnic people can't do the same.

She says she is never asked to speak for her entire racial group, yet she has no problem attempting to psychoanalyze an entire gender, as well as her entire ethnic group.

She says if she asks to talk to the person in charge, it will likely be a white person. Again, maybe in the 80's that was true. Maybe depending on your geographic region that's still true, I know it's not where I live though.

She says if she gets a job, her coworkers wont assume its because of race. More speculation, and I am guessing that in this hypothetical scenario she is employed at a 100% white business, which I have literally never encountered.

She says if the police pull her over, or if she has been audited, she can be sure it's not because of race. Not true. Cops want to write tickets, and its easier to cite and receive payment from a white US citizen than say an illegal alien with no drivers license.

She says she can remain oblivious to other cultures and not be shamed. That is an American experience in my opinion, not a racial experience.

She says she can swear, etc. without being looked upon as indicative of the illiteracy of her race. I beg to differ. If you swear a lot and can barely read or write, you may be labeled white trash.

She even lists bandages matching her skin color better than others. Really? I don't know what kind of privilege that is. Spongebob bandages are what's up anyways. ( although "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" was more pertinent to the time period)

I also take exception to her assumptions on male privileges in general. I don't operate subconsciously in those regards, there is no question men have favor over women. The only reason she can read, write, vote or do anything is because men, either past or present, allow her to. Is that morally right? That's a whole different debate.

This paper, and the one Warglory linked, both paint with an incredibly broad brush, imo. Saying "all white people think, feel and experience life this way" is as ignorant as could be, as it always is when lumping all people of one race, color, country, etc together. That's just how I feel these papers come off.... granted, I feel stereotypes exist because they are often accurate to a degree, but they aren't indicative of the experience of an entire race.

Edit: sorry it took so long to read/write this, I'm mobile at the moment. Definitely interesting stuff, its been a while since I had to think or use my brain

Double edit: BSB, I definitely agree about the tinge of white liberal guilt. While I wont disagree certain ethnic groups have certain proclivities, any human is capable of any action or thought, so I just try not to generalize. (Not implying you do!)

Oh, and I worked for the probation department for 3 years in the Repeat Offender Prevention Program.

Pretentious much?

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 7:09:00PM

Posted by pmoney

This paper, and the one Warglory linked, both paint with an incredibly broad brush, imo. Saying "all white people think, feel and experience life this way" is as ignorant as could be, as it always is when lumping all people of one race, color, country, etc together. That's just how I feel these papers come off.... granted, I feel stereotypes exist because they are often accurate to a degree, but they aren't indicative of the experience of an entire race.

That's fair. The paper comes with its criticism, but you're putting the cart before the horse. The question isn't whether or not YOU agree with it. Since sociology and sociological theories were presented in the original topic, the debate is academic.

As such, the only thing that matters is whether or not McIntosh's article is accepted within the field of Sociology. The simple fact of the matter is that the work is not only widely accepted, but it is also taught in sociology. As such, we have to accept the fact that this is an academic school of thought and people have provided more updated models to "prove" it has merit.

Try looking at it this way instead.

White people clearly have more advantages in society. They are often the people in charge and run most of our nation's top businesses. A simple combover of Fortune 500 will prove this to be accurate.

Now, white people are also the most reliant upon our nation's institutions. This is an accepted school of thought as well. We have the most access to them, they tend to work in favor of white people more often then minorities and there's issues of trust with certain institutions and minorities (i.e. Police).

Prolonged exposure and dependency upon these institutions will create more significant attachments to them. So, when they are taken away from white people, they will feel a stronger sense of disconnection. This is basic psychology & sociology here.

So, in a sense, white privilege CAN provide a POSSIBLE explanation for the amount of mass murderers who are white.

Also, for the record, Sociology, much like Criminal Justice, does distinguish between murders. So, genocidal dictators aren't considered mass-murderers.

People like Dylan Klebold, Lee Boyd Malvo, and John Allen Muhammed would be mass murderers.

The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence DOES support that theory. The Columbine shooters committed their heinous acts because they felt a major sense of Anomie in high school. They basically became minorities within their own school and felt a ton of anger about that. They didn't have access (in the social sense) to all the things that other students had. They then acted out on this sense of anomie.

You'd be a fool to think that their sense of entitlement was driven by some racial motivation. They were used to being in control of things. They wanted to assert control and take it back from those who had taken it.

I'm not saying it's THE explanation, but I am saying that I think it's foolish to say that it's absolutely untrue when several academic theories would support it.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 7:13:54PM

Posted by Adrenaline

Pretentious much?

Pretentious? No. Asserting the fact that I'm not only qualified to speak on the matter at hand, but that I have been trained to do? Yes.

The central theme of this discussion is Sociology. I worked very hard for my credentials in that field and if someone is going to question my knowledge, that's sort of what they are there for, right?

This is a debate about race, sociology, and possible explanations for murderous behavior. If you were trained in this particular field, wouldn't you use it and mention it?

Giving your credentials isn't pretentious. Especially not when you're presenting them in the appropriate setting.

Adrenaline

7/25/12 7:24:42PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Posted by Adrenaline

Pretentious much?

Pretentious? No. Asserting the fact that I'm not only qualified to speak on the matter at hand, but that I have been trained to do? Yes.

The central theme of this discussion is Sociology. I worked very hard for my credentials in that field and if someone is going to question my knowledge, that's sort of what they are there for, right?

This is a debate about race, sociology, and possible explanations for murderous behavior. If you were trained in this particular field, wouldn't you use it and mention it?

Giving your credentials isn't pretentious. Especially not when you're presenting them in the appropriate setting.

Giving your credentials is not pretentious, YOU are pretentious.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 7:29:04PM

Posted by Adrenaline

Giving your credentials is not pretentious, YOU are pretentious.

You mistake being certain of my academic prowess and being opinionated with pretentious.

Included within the definition of pretentious are the words "unwarranted & unjustified" & since I have the degrees and published literature to back up my opinions, they are neither unwarranted nor unjustified.

I believe the adjective you were looking for is "ostentatious"

pmoney

7/25/12 7:33:45PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Posted by pmoney

This paper, and the one Warglory linked, both paint with an incredibly broad brush, imo. Saying "all white people think, feel and experience life this way" is as ignorant as could be, as it always is when lumping all people of one race, color, country, etc together. That's just how I feel these papers come off.... granted, I feel stereotypes exist because they are often accurate to a degree, but they aren't indicative of the experience of an entire race.

That's fair. The paper comes with its criticism, but you're putting the cart before the horse. The question isn't whether or not YOU agree with it. Since sociology and sociological theories were presented in the original topic, the debate is academic.

As such, the only thing that matters is whether or not McIntosh's article is accepted within the field of Sociology. The simple fact of the matter is that the work is not only widely accepted, but it is also taught in sociology. As such, we have to accept the fact that this is an academic school of thought and people have provided more updated models to "prove" it has merit.

Try looking at it this way instead.

White people clearly have more advantages in society. They are often the people in charge and run most of our nation's top businesses. A simple combover of Fortune 500 will prove this to be accurate.

Now, white people are also the most reliant upon our nation's institutions. This is an accepted school of thought as well. We have the most access to them, they tend to work in favor of white people more often then minorities and there's issues of trust with certain institutions and minorities (i.e. Police).

Prolonged exposure and dependency upon these institutions will create more significant attachments to them. So, when they are taken away from white people, they will feel a stronger sense of disconnection. This is basic psychology & sociology here.

So, in a sense, white privilege CAN provide a POSSIBLE explanation for the amount of mass murderers who are white.

Also, for the record, Sociology, much like Criminal Justice, does distinguish between murders. So, genocidal dictators aren't considered mass-murderers.

People like Dylan Klebold, Lee Boyd Malvo, and John Allen Muhammed would be mass murderers.

The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence DOES support that theory. The Columbine shooters committed their heinous acts because they felt a major sense of Anomie in high school. They basically became minorities within their own school and felt a ton of anger about that. They didn't have access (in the social sense) to all the things that other students had. They then acted out on this sense of anomie.

You'd be a fool to think that their sense of entitlement was driven by some racial motivation. They were used to being in control of things. They wanted to assert control and take it back from those who had taken it.

I'm not saying it's THE explanation, but I am saying that I think it's foolish to say that it's absolutely untrue when several academic theories would support it.

You make valid points sir. While I definitely agree that white privilege is perceived as well as experienced, I don't think is perceived, experienced or "afforded" to or by all white people.

Take the kids from Columbine. I would argue that they did what they did because they never belonged, not because they weren't afforded white privilege or that said privileges were revoked. They were the "freaks" of the school. I know what that's like. I listened to metal, dressed in all black and I was the subject of ridicule to the preps, the jocks, the geeks, etc. I didn't grow up in a big house. The nicest car we ever had was a used Ford Taurus that died all the time. Eventually though, I was accepted by the kids in my school, and got along with all cliques and was allowed to sit at whatever table I wanted. These kids never got that opportunity. Just because they had a few friends doesn't mean they didn't face rejection at large every day. I think they attacked an institution they felt they never belonged to, as opposed to attacking an institution they "should" have belonged to by virtue of being white.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 7:41:14PM

Posted by pmoney

You make valid points sir. While I definitely agree that white privilege is perceived as well as experienced, I don't think is perceived, experienced or "afforded" to or by all white people.

Take the kids from Columbine. I would argue that they did what they did because they never belonged, not because they weren't afforded white privilege or that said privileges were revoked. They were the "freaks" of the school. I know what that's like. I listened to metal, dressed in all black and I was the subject of ridicule to the preps, the jocks, the geeks, etc. I didn't grow up in a big house. The nicest car we ever had was a used Ford Taurus that died all the time. Eventually though, I was accepted by the kids in my school, and got along with all cliques and was allowed to sit at whatever table I wanted. These kids never got that opportunity. Just because they had a few friends doesn't mean they didn't face rejection at large every day. I think they attacked an institution they felt they never belonged to, as opposed to attacking an institution they "should" have belonged to by virtue of being white.

I think there's a lot of valid points in here. I only have one question/concern.

You mention they felt disconnected from an institution they never belonged to in the first place rather than attacking it because they felt they belonged there based on skin color.

I agree with this statement as a standalone, but I would posit the idea that they felt different than all the other kids. They were the minority who didn't have what the others had and feelings of why must have kicked in.

Part of their socialization process was the belief that they were "just like everyone else" and should be treated as such. That, in it of itself, is very much a white issue. Many minorities are NOT raised thinking that they will/should be treated like everyone else. They are taught to expect to be treated different from a very early age.

Whites, generally, are not. We are told the world is our oyster and that we can do anything we want to do. We are just like everyone else. Sure, there will be differences among whites that we will point out, but by and large white people move around with great freedom in society as compared to other races. They're taught to avoid things and not to go certain places.

When you consider that, his privilege was very much a component of his alienation from his fellow peers. If anything, he was TWICE as frustrated by his lack of acceptance because he couldn't understand it. It didn't make sense to him and his only recourse was a violent outburst.

Again, I'm not saying this is 100% accurate. I'm asking if it's possible to logically connect those dots in an academic setting. I think it is.

Adrenaline

7/25/12 7:49:54PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Posted by Adrenaline

Giving your credentials is not pretentious, YOU are pretentious.

You mistake being certain of my academic prowess and being opinionated with pretentious.

Included within the definition of pretentious are the words "unwarranted & unjustified" & since I have the degrees and published literature to back up my opinions, they are neither unwarranted nor unjustified.

I believe the adjective you were looking for is "ostentatious"

No, pretentious is the word I was looking for:

pre·ten·tious/pri'tenCH?s/Adjective:

Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc. than is actually possessed.----That pretty much sums you up. Although maybe you do possess a great deal of knowledge but it comes off that you just think that you have more than the rest of us.

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

What do I know, though? Not like I took these classes:

I also didn’t teach 2 sociology classes at a 4-year university.

Oh, and I worked for the probation department for 3 years in the Repeat Offender Prevention Program.

You could have simply stated that you have a background in sociology instead you make sarcastic remarks as if it is a silly notion that anyone should question your credentials. To take it one step further, you feel the need to list every single sociology class you have ever taken like we are comparing dick sizes. If you can read what you write (on just about any thread, not just this one) and not see that it reeks of self importance than I don't know what to tell you.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 8:01:56PM

Posted by Adrenaline

No, pretentious is the word I was looking for:

pre·ten·tious/pri'tenCH?s/Adjective:

Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc. than is actually possessed.----That pretty much sums you up. Although maybe you do possess a great deal of knowledge but it comes off that you just think that you have more than the rest of us.

You could have simply stated that you have a background in sociology instead you make sarcastic remarks as if it is a silly notion that anyone should question your credentials. To take it one step further, you feel the need to list every single sociology class you have ever taken like we are comparing dick sizes. If you can read what you write (on just about any thread, not just this one) and not see that it reeks of self importance than I don't know what to tell you.

I bolded the part that you conveniently left out. I actually possess two degrees that say I am more qualified than 92% of the population.

Does anyone know how many have to die for it to be considered a mass murder?

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 8:18:19PM

Posted by prophecy033

Does anyone know how many have to die for it to be considered a mass murder?

Honestly, there are basic criteria for these things, but nothing is steadfast. Some people call mass murderers a serial killer and vice versa.

It's like Judge Potter Stewart once said about porn:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it

Adrenaline

7/25/12 8:19:37PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I actually possess two degrees that say I am more qualified than 92% of the population.

Qualified for what? Being a know it all? You got me there brother you are owning 92% of the population on that one. No need to debate that.

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

but at the end of the day, it wasn't you spent 9 years of their life obtaining those credentials.

How do you know I don't have an advanced degree? Because I don't shove it down everyone's throat like you do? Stop pea-cocking, we all know you are a smart guy, us simple folk don't need reminded daily about how you are vastly superior at everything.

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 8:23:45PM

Posted by Adrenaline

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I actually possess two degrees that say I am more qualified than 92% of the population.

Qualified for what? Being a know it all? You got me there brother you are owning 92% of the population on that one. No need to debate that.

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

but at the end of the day, it wasn't you spent 9 years of their life obtaining those credentials.

How do you know I don't have an advanced degree? Because I don't shove it down everyone's throat like you do? Stop pea-cocking, we all know you are a smart guy, us simple folk don't need reminded daily about how you are vastly superior at everything.

Not at everything, just one thing. You live life the way it works for you and I'll live life the way it works for me.

By the way, you answered your own question. Qualified by an advanced degree on the subject matter being discussed. They usually call those "experts"

Now, I'm not an expert at everything, but I am an expert at one thing.

Also, you failed to answer my question. How is this any different from what fighters say about other fighters in the interviews leading up to the fights?

What is different about me saying I'm better in my profession than other people? Even if you do have an advanced degree. How is me boasting my professional skills any different from a fighter boasting his professional skills?

pmoney

7/25/12 8:30:07PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I think there's a lot of valid points in here. I only have one question/concern.

You mention they felt disconnected from an institution they never belonged to in the first place rather than attacking it because they felt they belonged there based on skin color.

I agree with this statement as a standalone, but I would posit the idea that they felt different than all the other kids. They were the minority who didn't have what the others had and feelings of why must have kicked in.

Part of their socialization process was the belief that they were "just like everyone else" and should be treated as such. That, in it of itself, is very much a white issue. Many minorities are NOT raised thinking that they will/should be treated like everyone else. They are taught to expect to be treated different from a very early age.

Whites, generally, are not. We are told the world is our oyster and that we can do anything we want to do. We are just like everyone else. Sure, there will be differences among whites that we will point out, but by and large white people move around with great freedom in society as compared to other races. They're taught to avoid things and not to go certain places.

When you consider that, his privilege was very much a component of his alienation from his fellow peers. If anything, he was TWICE as frustrated by his lack of acceptance because he couldn't understand it. It didn't make sense to him and his only recourse was a violent outburst.

Again, I'm not saying this is 100% accurate. I'm asking if it's possible to logically connect those dots in an academic setting. I think it is.

I would agree that it's not a big leap. As you said, it goes back to upbringing. White people trying to tell their kids everything is peaches and cream is an incredible disservice; equally a disservice is ethnic people telling their children to avoid and distrust certain situations and people. Like I stated earlier, you don't see a lot of Jewish or Asian homeless people, and that's because of their upbringing. They stress hard work and family values over anything else, not some pie in the sky utopian BS or perpetuating a culture of victimization.

It reminds me of a quote, "The only reason good and bad exist is because we are taught there is a difference".

BlueSkiesBurn

7/25/12 8:41:29PM

Posted by pmoney

I would agree that it's not a big leap. As you said, it goes back to upbringing. White people trying to tell their kids everything is peaches and cream is an incredible disservice; equally a disservice is ethnic people telling their children to avoid and distrust certain situations and people. Like I stated earlier, you don't see a lot of Jewish or Asian homeless people, and that's because of their upbringing. They stress hard work and family values over anything else, not some pie in the sky utopian BS or perpetuating a culture of victimization.

It reminds me of a quote, "The only reason good and bad exist is because we are taught there is a difference".

I agree with this one-hundred percent. Often times, I think, we as white folk forget some of the privileges and assumptions that have been generationalized into our upbringing. Essentially, white people have enjoyed it for so long, it's just become part of the behavior over the years.

Obviously a gay, white male will have a different experience than a straight, white male, but I think that on the whole much of their experience will be similar. Even if we are able to differentiate these ideas and flesh out these topics, there are a number of people who cannot do so and it furthers the discrimination.

For every person that doesn't give a black man a second thought when he enters the store, there's an old, white lady who crosses the street to avoid the "scary looking black man." I think that we often forget that people do that because it's not part of our upbringing.

I agree with you, Patrick. Many of these issues are dated. Much of today's youth has been brought up to call out discrimination. We are more vocal and, to an extent, egalitarian than our ancestors.

Yet, at the same time, discrimination will also modernized. People have found new ways to discriminate based on sex, gender, and race. Like the criminal justice system, the cops will always be one step behind the criminals strictly due to the fact that they have to develop reactionary technology.

Almost every tactic used by law enforcement is somehow a reaction to something developed by criminals.

Criminals discovered they could start a car without keys, we developed the car alarm. Criminals figured out how to disable the alarm, so we invented the Club. Criminals figured out how to get around the Club, so we invented Lo-Jack/GPS.

This isn't a detailed history of car theft, but you get the general idea of what I'm saying. The offenders are almost always one step ahead of those that would seek to stop an action. Racism and discrimination are no different, in my opinion.